People v. Cardona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cardona

75 A.D.2d 520, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 520 (People v. Cardona) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cardona, 75 A.D.2d 520, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered May 24, 1978, convicting defendant of rape in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term not exceeding six years, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the judgment of conviction to rape in the second degree and the matter remanded for resentence. As the People concede, the facts admitted by defendant on the plea allocution do not support a conviction of rape in the first degree, but, instead, of rape in the second degree, in that being 18 years or more, he engaged in sexual intercourse with a female less than 14 years of age (Penal Law, § 130.30). Modification, to which the People consent and indeed, which they urge, is therefore appropriate to conform the conviction to the crime to which defendant pleaded. (See People v Waddell, 66 AD2d 807.) A remand is [521]*521necessary, however, for resentence. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Silver-man, Lynch and Carro, JJ. 9 Florinda B. Tome et al., Plaintiffs, v Jorge Buitrago et al., Defen-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered May 24, 1978, convicting defendant of rape in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term not exceeding six years, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the judgment of conviction to rape in the second degree and the matter remanded for resentence. As the People concede, the facts admitted by defendant on the plea allocution do not support a conviction of rape in the first degree, but, instead, of rape in the second degree, in that being 18 years or more, he engaged in sexual intercourse with a female less than 14 years of age (Penal Law, § 130.30). Modification, to which the People consent and indeed, which they urge, is therefore appropriate to conform the conviction to the crime to which defendant pleaded. (See People v Waddell, 66 AD2d 807.) A remand is [521]*521necessary, however, for resentence. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Silver-man, Lynch and Carro, JJ. 9 Florinda B. Tome et al., Plaintiffs, v Jorge Buitrago et al., Defen-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 520, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cardona-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack